What did you think of him and where do you rank him on an all-time level?

His career was filled with highly debatable decisions that were both for and against him (Trinidad, Mosley, Whitaker, etc.). He managed to put on some great performances and I think he's often underrated.

I don't know of anybody that has under rated Oscar, everybody gave him his dues. He's on my top 10.

Oscar is overrated due to his star power. That doesn't mean he wasn't great to a point. But he lost too many important fights to be seen as one of the best ever. ATG? Maybe, depending on how long your list is. Some define ATG as best 20 ever, some 50, some 100. It's open to interpretation.

Oscar is overrated due to his star power. That doesn't mean he wasn't great to a point. But he lost too many important fights to be seen as one of the best ever. ATG? Maybe, depending on how long your list is. Some define ATG as best 20 ever, some 50, some 100. It's open to interpretation.

He needed those wins against Tito, Mosley and Mayweather.

He is #57 on my p4p list and i if he wouldn't have gotten tired and have won the TITO and first Mosley fight than he could have been top 30. Nonetheless, i still thought he had a draw 114-114 in the Trinidad fight. He also never lost a fight in three divisions 130, 135, and 140. He is also one of the few fighters to have won belts in 6 different weight classes-even if his win at 160 for Sturm's WBO title was a gift decision.

anywhere from 60th-70th is reasonable, imo.

I don't know of anybody that has under rated Oscar, everybody gave him his dues. He's on my top 10.

Top 10 all time?

Oscar is actually beginning to be underrated, at least on this site. The guy was the man at welterweight for a while, has some really good wins, and a couple big losses that were debatable. He could box, could knock you silly with his left, and had a damn good chin.

Oscar was a great fighter. A throw-back fighter. He fought them all. Not many can say that in this day and age.

Top 10 all time?

He's on my top ten favorites fighters.

Oscar is up there on the ATG list. Has a sick resume!

The man put boxing back on the map. I seriously doubt there will ever be another Oscar! He was special, something about him made people watch his fights, when he lost it didn't even matter, he would actually gain fans in losses. PPV king, Olympic Gold, 6 division champ, successful promoter. What else can you ask from a guy?

He needed those wins against Tito, Mosley and Mayweather.
He desrved to get the win for his 2nd fight with Mosley and the Tito fight.

Oscar is a legend and like someone stated before was in many controversial fights.
Destroyed Ruelas
Tamed Vargas
Shut Mayorga Up
Bloodied up Chavez. Twice
Robbed against Mosley II-Trinidad
showed heart against Quartey

Tools-wise, I think Oscar is one of the top 50 fighters ever, but I agree with the earlier poster who said he lost too many important fights to be any higher than that. But that hand speed, chin, and obviously the crushing left hook mean that I'd give him at least a shot against anyone in history.

He desrved to get the win for his 2nd fight with Mosley and the Tito fight.

I had him winning both but what I meant was he needed to get the W on his record.

He's on my top ten favorites fighters.

I can appreciate that.

Like old school fighters he did fight anyone win, lose, or draw. He went in the ring with atleast 10 probable Hall of Famers: Chavez, Whitaker,Camacho, Hernandez, Paez, Trinidad, Mosley, Hopkins,Mayweather, and Pacquiao. In addition, guys who have an outside shot at the HOF as Ruelas, Quartay,Sturm, and Gatti. That is much more than Mayweather has faced. The only guys Floyd has faced that are probable hall of famers are DLH, DC, and his upcoming fight with mosley. There is an outside shot for both hatton and Gatti. Even with his two devasting kO losses i do think Hatton should get some consideration since he did get Fighter of the year, his titles at 140 & 147, and his only 2 losses were for the perceived best fighters in the world at the time unlike losing to a journeyman or tomato can.

I like him, and give him his props.
I wished he would have given more at the end against Tito because he should have definitely won that fight.

What did you think of him and where do you rank him on an all-time level?

His career was filled with highly debatable decisions that were both for and against him (Trinidad, Mosley, Whitaker, etc.). He managed to put on some great performances and I think he's often underrated.

I've never been a big fan of him TBH, he was an excellent fighter in his own right and was in some good fights but there was something about him that was always a put-off for me. I thought he lost the Quartey fight, won the Trinidad fight but was not impressive by any means and his performance kind of rankled, I didn't watch his fight with Whitaker in it's entirety so I can't make an honest assesment and I've never seen the second Mosley fight. Good fighter, excellent physical attributes and not lacking in the skill department but for some reason he wasn't able to pull it all together for the times it really mattered. I can't really think of anything to say about him that hasn't been said many times before so I'll leave it at that.

Very overrated, particularly in later years by new fans who look at boxrec and say, "man, he fought them all."

More important than who is when.

Nevertheless, still a great fighter and a sure-fire HOF'er.

Underrated imo.

I had him losing to Sturm, Quartey but beating Mosley 2, Trinidad and Whitaker.

Oscar has good wins over guys like Oba Carr,Gatti,Camacho,Ruelas,Genaro Hernandez,Leija,Paez,Molina,Wilfredo Rivera,then you have his wins over Chavez,Vargas,Maryorga.

Imagine how much better DLH's record would look if he had not gotten raw deals in the Mosley rematch, Trinidad fight.

Underrated imo.

I had him losing to Sturm, Quartey but beating Mosley 2, Trinidad and Whitaker.

Oscar has good wins over guys like Oba Carr,Gatti,Camacho,Ruelas,Genaro Hernandez,Leija,Paez,Molina,Wilfredo Rivera,then you have his wins over Chavez,Vargas,Maryorga.

Imagine how much better DLH's record would look if he had not gotten raw deals in the Mosley rematch, Trinidad fight.

Or worse if the Molina, Whitaker and Sturm fights allw ent in the opposite direction.

Or worse if the Molina, Whitaker and Sturm fights allw ent in the opposite direction.

Well i dont recall much controversy about the Molina fight although its been a while since i saw it.

The Whitaker fight was extremely close fight that IMO neither of them deserved to win, that said id lean to DLH if pushed. You dont seem to like DLH maybe thats why you would rather look at it from a negative aspect, none of those fights were clear losses for DLH except for the Sturm fight, what your doing is making every conceivable close fight he had go against him and saying what happens if his record looks like this, thats clearly not fair.



Oscar Dela Hoya vs Pernerll Whitaker

Round 1 Whitaker or even

I felt Whitaker was a litte more active with the jab, DLH was a little less
active but landed the occasionaly cuffing shot

Round 2 Oscar Dela Hoya (clearer)

DLH got the jab to score this round and he landed some counter right hands
Whitaker was more tentive of attacking because he knew DLH got his
counter punching game together

Round 3 Even

Very hard round to score imo. Whitaker was more consistent
but DLH landed the harder shots

Gave this round to Whitaker but because of the WBC ruling of taking a point from the uncut fighter
when a butt occurs then it had to be made an even round.


Round 4 Oscar Dela Hoya

DLH scored well early and closed the round out better.

Round 5 Whitaker
Whitaker nailed DLH pretty good early in this round and went onto
dictate the round

Round 6 Whitaker (very very close)
I felt Whitaker may have stolen it right at the end, although DLH landed the
harder shots

Round 7 Oscar Dela Hoya

DLH landed a few good counter right hands this round


Round 8 Oscar Dela Hoya(clearer)
DLH landed some hard clean shots this round

Round 9 Whitaker 10/8

Round 10 Oscar Dela Hoya

Close round where i felt DLH answered Whitaker's punches and landed hard, closed the round
out better.

Round 11 Oscar Dela Hoya (Lederman scored for Whitaker)
I felt he countered and landed with the harder shots, Whitaker was the aggressor but DLH managed
to land some hard counter shots on him. DLH landed the best punch of the round to.

Round 12 Oscar Dela Hoya

DLH was more active





5 rounds to Whitaker with his 10/8 round, 7 rounds to DLH. I would of scored it 6 rounds to Whitaker
but the stupid WBC ruling said that you must take a point from the uncut fighter if there is a clash of heads
so i scored the round he won in round 3 even.


Last time i scored this fight i had it a draw and i saw nothing this time to suggest that either man
deserved the victory. I felt DLH just edged it, although if i was incharge i would not have given it
to either man tbh.

DLH landed the harder shots but threw in spurts, Whitaker threw too many jabs and singles.

DLH actually countered well at times with the right hand.

Or worse if the Molina, Whitaker and Sturm fights allw ent in the opposite direction.


This whole controversy surrounding the verdict given in the Molina fight is probably all down to the incompetent judging on Harold Lederman's part.He was giving Molina rounds purely out of spite towards De La Hoya and he's done this in some Wladimir Klitschko fights too.


The truth is,you'd be hard pressed to find four rounds in which Molina actually won.Molina was a stinker and fought like a stinker.



Anyone who hasn't watched this fight and is thinking about going back and watching it........DON'T!

Well i dont recall much controversy about the Molina fight although its been a while since i saw it.

The Whitaker fight was extremely close fight that IMO neither of them deserved to win, that said id lean to DLH if pushed. You dont seem to like DLH maybe thats why you would rather look at it from a negative aspect, none of those fights were clear losses for DLH except for the Sturm fight, what your doing is making every conceivable close fight he had go against him and saying what happens if his record looks like this, thats clearly not fair.



Oscar Dela Hoya vs Pernerll Whitaker

Round 1 Whitaker or even

I felt Whitaker was a litte more active with the jab, DLH was a little less
active but landed the occasionaly cuffing shot

Round 2 Oscar Dela Hoya (clearer)

DLH got the jab to score this round and he landed some counter right hands
Whitaker was more tentive of attacking because he knew DLH got his
counter punching game together

Round 3 Even

Very hard round to score imo. Whitaker was more consistent
but DLH landed the harder shots

Gave this round to Whitaker but because of the WBC ruling of taking a point from the uncut fighter
when a butt occurs then it had to be made an even round.


Round 4 Oscar Dela Hoya

DLH scored well early and closed the round out better.

Round 5 Whitaker
Whitaker nailed DLH pretty good early in this round and went onto
dictate the round

Round 6 Whitaker (very very close)
I felt Whitaker may have stolen it right at the end, although DLH landed the
harder shots

Round 7 Oscar Dela Hoya

DLH landed a few good counter right hands this round


Round 8 Oscar Dela Hoya(clearer)
DLH landed some hard clean shots this round

Round 9 Whitaker 10/8

Round 10 Oscar Dela Hoya

Close round where i felt DLH answered Whitaker's punches and landed hard, closed the round
out better.

Round 11 Oscar Dela Hoya (Lederman scored for Whitaker)
I felt he countered and landed with the harder shots, Whitaker was the aggressor but DLH managed
to land some hard counter shots on him. DLH landed the best punch of the round to.

Round 12 Oscar Dela Hoya

DLH was more active





5 rounds to Whitaker with his 10/8 round, 7 rounds to DLH. I would of scored it 6 rounds to Whitaker
but the stupid WBC ruling said that you must take a point from the uncut fighter if there is a clash of heads
so i scored the round he won in round 3 even.


Last time i scored this fight i had it a draw and i saw nothing this time to suggest that either man
deserved the victory. I felt DLH just edged it, although if i was incharge i would not have given it
to either man tbh.

DLH landed the harder shots but threw in spurts, Whitaker threw too many jabs and singles.

DLH actually countered well at times with the right hand.

I had Whitaker winning 7-5. Thought he controlled the pace, landed more, threw more, displayed better defense; you name it. Oscar ATG? Hell nah. What was his best win, Vargas? He had a number of solid wins but nothing that would transcend him to that level.

I had Whitaker winning 7-5. Thought he controlled the pace, landed more, threw more, displayed better defense; you name it. Oscar ATG? Hell nah. What was his best win, Vargas? He had a number of solid wins but nothing that would transcend him to that level.


Whitaker threw too many single punches and fought too negatively.

7-5 is way to wide,Whitaker showed good defence but he did too much moving and not enough sticking, when he did stick they were only jabs and singles, DLH landed the harder punches and actually did a good job of countering with the right hand at times. When you make someone miss you have to counter, Whitaker usually did this but against DLH he was just making him miss, you dont get subliminal points for making the opponent miss, you have to score.


I dont think either of them deserved to win but no way did Whitaker win 7-5 or show any superiority in that fight, neither guy was effective enough to do that. You should watch it again, then again would you be able to be objective regarding DLH?

Who did Mike Tyson beat to make him an ATG? many people consider him an ATG though.

Whitaker threw too many single punches and fought too negatively.

7-5 is way to wide,Whitaker showed good defence but he did too much moving and not enough sticking, when he did stick they were only jabs and singles, DLH landed the harder punches and actually did a good job of countering with the right hand at times. When you make someone miss you have to counter, Whitaker usually did this but against DLH he was just making him miss, you dont get subliminal points for making the opponent miss, you have to score.


I dont think either of them deserved to win but no way did Whitaker win 7-5 or show any superiority in that fight, neither guy was effective enough to do that. You should watch it again, then again would you be able to be objective regarding DLH?

Who did Mike Tyson beat to make him an ATG? many people consider him an ATG though.

Generally, Tyson is NOT considered an ATG and I'm not sure how that's relevant.

I have DLH-Whitaker and watched it as recently as last week, actually. I don't know what fighting negative means but Whitaker threw more, landed more and at a higher percentage. Controlled the fight with his jab so it couldn't have been that weak. And no way did Whitaker win 7-5? I'm being generous; I thought you could make a case for 8-4 as well.

Generally, Tyson is NOT considered an ATG and I'm not sure how that's relevant.

I have DLH-Whitaker and watched it as recently as last week, actually. I don't know what fighting negative means but Whitaker threw more, landed more and at a higher percentage. Controlled the fight with his jab so it couldn't have been that weak. And no way did Whitaker win 7-5? I'm being generous; I thought you could make a case for 8-4 as well.

Well ive spoken to many people in here who consider him to be, its relevant because many people consider him to be one.


Fighting negatively is going backwards making the opponent miss but not making them pay enough,landing with singles shots that lack authority, its quite simple.

And no way did Whitaker win 7-5? I'm being generous; I thought you could make a case for 8-4 as well


LOL pointless talking to you then its quite obvious you have a dislike for DLH and cant comment objectively on him. Im not a big DLH fan but you are doing him a disservice.

Your blind if you think Whitaker could of won that fight 8-4, particularly when one of those rounds HAD!! to be scored a draw because of the point deduction.

Well ive spoken to many people in here who consider him to be, its relevant because many people consider him to be one.


Fighting negatively is going backwards making the opponent miss but not making them pay enough,landing with singles shots that lack authority, its quite simple.

And no way did Whitaker win 7-5? I'm being generous; I thought you could make a case for 8-4 as well


LOL pointless talking to you then its quite obvious you have a dislike for DLH and cant comment objectively on him. Im not a big DLH fan but you are doing him a disservice.

Your blind if you think Whitaker could of won that fight 8-4, particularly when one of those rounds HAD!! to be scored a draw because of the point deduction.

That's retarded. No round HAD to be scored a draw. There was also a KD as well - doesn't that even things out? Furthermore, yes, he fought circling and going backwards and made his opponent miss but he also landed more than his opponent. I could easily tell you that you have a hard-on for Oscar which is why you think anyone that had Whitaker winning convincingly is blind. No point in talking to you, I guess.

That's retarded. No round HAD to be scored a draw. There was also a KD as well - doesn't that even things out? Furthermore, yes, he fought circling and going backwards and made his opponent miss but he also landed more than his opponent. I could easily tell you that you have a hard-on for Oscar which is why you think anyone that had Whitaker winning convincingly is blind. No point in talking to you, I guess.



Of coarse it DID!!!!! even if you think Whitaker won the round he had a point taken. Did a KD occur in the round Whitaker had a point taken, well WTF does that have to do with that particular round, its still an even round? so only a tard could score it 8-4 lol


See thats what people do when they hate a particular fighter, they try to pass off their hate by claiming anyone with some objectivity on the fighter in question is a nuthugger of that fight so exonerates them from being a pure hater!

Go back to the NSB as you clearly dont know how to score a fight or be objective.

Of coarse it DID!!!!! even if you think Whitaker won the round he had a point taken. Did a KD occur in the round Whitaker had a point taken, well WTF does that have to do with that particular round, its still an even round? so only a tard could score it 8-4 lol


See thats what people do when they hate a particular fighter, they try to pass off their hate by claiming anyone with some objectivity on the fighter in question is a nuthugger of that fight so exonerates them from being a pure hater!

Go back to the NSB as you clearly dont know how to score a fight or be objective.

Funny guy. I gave you who I thought won the round, not my actual scorecard. I was simply using your own dumb logic about "even round" yada yada.

I'm not sure who you think you're talking to but you're getting pretty worked up. I humor you Dynamite because at least you care about the sport. But don't tell me I'm not being objective because YOU can't possibly see how someone scored it convincingly for Whitaker. I have the fight, watched it live, and have seen it countless times since. As recently as last week. Maybe you're blind? Or maybe scoring is subjective. I believe we're done here.

Funny guy. I gave you who I thought won the round, not my actual scorecard. I was simply using your own dumb logic about "even round" yada yada.

I'm not sure who you think you're talking to but you're getting pretty worked up. I humor you Dynamite because at least you care about the sport. But don't tell me I'm not being objective because YOU can't possibly see how someone scored it convincingly for Whitaker. I have the fight, watched it lived, and have seen it countless times since. I believe we're done here.


You prolly forgot that the round HAD to be scored even when you got consumed be your dislike for DLH.

Your not being objective no, how could you be when it was quite clearly an extremely! close fight, so much so that most!! of the rounds were very difficult to score because neither man was able to impose what they wanted to do on the other man.

If you think Whitaker fair enough but no way did he win 7-5 or 8-4, even at 7-5 there is still an even round so..........

You prolly forgot that the round HAD to be scored even when you got consumed be your dislike for DLH.

Your not being objective no, how could you be when it was quite clearly an extremely! close fight, so much so that most!! of the rounds were very difficult to score because neither man was able to impose what they wanted to do on the other man.

If you think Whitaker fair enough but no way did he win 7-5 or 8-4, even at 7-5 there is still an even round so..........

No round has to be scored "even" when Im scoring who won the round, not giving my actual scorecard. You really are something else. Calm down, relax and think for a second. Second, how can you say if I think Whitaker won then "fair enough" but no way 7-5? My friend, YOU are not being objective. Especially if you think the rounds were very difficult to score. Whatever, I'm done with this debate over the fight. The bottom line is that if you want to give Oscar the benefit of the doubt for Trinidad and Mosley II, you'd have to give his other opponents (Pea, Sturm, etc) the same benefit of the doubt.

No round has to be scored "even" when Im scoring who won the round, not giving my actual scorecard. You really are something else. Calm down, relax and think for a second. Second, how can you say if I think Whitaker won then "fair enough" but no way 7-5? My friend, YOU are not being objective. Especially if you think the rounds were very difficult to score. Whatever, I'm done with this debate over the fight. The bottom line is that if you want to give Oscar the benefit of the doubt for Trinidad and Mosley II, you'd have to give his other opponents (Pea, Sturm, etc) the same benefit of the doubt.



It does if your gonna try and be in line with the official rules. How many fights you gonna say were one way rather than another because you! apparently only count KD's when you! think they should be called, If you did that for every fight you would have some wildly varying opinion to the majority of Boxing fans when these contentious issues comes up.

Dont patronize me im objective here,you! are not.


So ill ask you a question, were the rounds hard to score or not ?

you'd have to give his other opponents (Pea, Sturm, etc) the same benefit of the doubt.


Why would you? DLH clearly beat Mosley,Trinidad and the Whitaker fight was extremely close and dominated by nobody, Where as the Sturm fight was actually a clear! loss for DLH, get some perception son, jeez! LOL

It does if your gonna try and be in line with the official rules. How many fights you gonna say were one way rather than another because you! apparently only count KD's when you! think they should be called, If you did that for every fight you would have some wildly varying opinion to the majority of Boxing fans when these contentious issues comes up.

Dont patronize me. Im objective here you! are not.


So ill ask you a question, were the rounds hard to score or not ?

you'd have to give his other opponents (Pea, Sturm, etc) the same benefit of the doubt.


Why would you? DLH clearly beat Mosley,Trinidad and the Whitaker fight was extremely close and dominated by nobody, Where as the Sturm fight was actually a clear! loss for DLH, get some perception son, jeez! LOL

With the official rules? WTF? And then telling someone "Im objective, you're not" in the same sentence you tell someone not to patronize you? F*ck perception, get a clue. DLH clearly beat Mosley and Tito according to YOU. Of 24 writers who sat ringside, 16 scored the bout for Mosley. I think maybe you should stop telling others how objective you are and how they aren't. Close fights tend to go either way, bud. And my point was that if you want to pretend that Oscar "clearly" won those fights, then you have to give his opponents the same benefit of the doubt in the close fights they lost. And that doesn't mean the fights YOU "clearly" feel one way about or the other. Kinda self-defeating, wouldn't you say?

The Drag Queen of Paper Titles.

With the official rules? WTF? And then telling someone "Im objective, you're not" in the same sentence you tell someone not to patronize you? F*ck perception, get a clue. DLH clearly beat Mosley and Tito according to YOU. Of 24 writers who sat ringside, 16 scored the bout for Mosley. I think maybe you should stop telling others how objective you are and how they aren't. Close fights tend to go either way, bud. And my point was that if you want to pretend that Oscar "clearly" won those fights, then you have to give his opponents the same benefit of the doubt in the close fights they lost. And that doesn't mean the fights YOU "clearly" feel one way about or the other. Kinda self-defeating, wouldn't you say?

I dont get your first point you will have to rephrase it.


Do you know how many times ive heard someone come up with lame argument about press row scoring, those guys usually always have it too wide or inaccurate imo.

I dont have to pretend its a view that is held by the majority of people, only a retard thinks that saying DLH won is giving him the benefit of the doubt when most people think he beat Tito & Mosley 2, so by some retarded logic you gotta say that any other remotely close fight he had should of gone the other way despite the fact he did not only win those fights but won clearly.

Ive spoken to you before and you back to your notorious dodging of questions, did you think the rounds in Whitaker/DLH fight were close rounds/hard to score. ?

Do you know how many times ive heard someone come up with lame argument about press row scoring, those guys usually always have it too wide or inaccurate imo.

Out of curiousity, what makes you special? Because you hold the UNIQUE position of believing you're right? Well sh*t, then I guess you are!

I dont have to pretend its a view that is held by the majority of people, only a retard thinks that saying DLH won is giving him the benefit of the doubt when most people think he beat Tito & Mosley 2 so by some retarded logic you gotta say that any other remotely close fight he had should of gone the other way despite the fact he did not only win those fights but won clearly.
Well then a lot of people are retarded. Some of them just aren't aware yet.

Ive spoken to you before and you back to your notorious dodging of questions, did you think the rounds in Whitaker/DLH fight were close rounds/hard to score. ?

Notorious dodging? You think quite highly of yourself. For the record, I didn't find the rounds difficult to score at all. There might've been a couple in the mid to late rounds but that was it.

Out of curiousity, what makes you special? Because you hold the UNIQUE position of believing you're right? Well sh*t, then I guess you are!

Well then a lot of people are retarded. Some of them just aren't aware yet.



Notorious dodging? You think quite highly of yourself. For the record, I didn't find the rounds difficult to score at all. There might've been a couple in the mid to late rounds but that was it.


No i dont believe im more right than anyone else but you know what i do credit myself on being, being fairly balanced and not letting crowd reaction, commentary reaction, public reaction cloud my judgment, plus im always willing to concede if someone has a close fight the other way, what i cant respect is people with an agenda who will try and overreact and make something out to be some 8-4 fight that was easy to score when it was SO!! clearly not easy to score or wide one way or another.


Not at all i tend always answers your questions, its YOU! who dodges questions like before when we spoke in the lounge.



I didn't find the rounds difficult to score at all. There might've been a couple in the mid to late rounds but that was it.

Thats why you have no perception. I found it hard to score for either man because i was taking in what BOTH men we effective doing and neither did enough to earn victory over the other imo, much less a victory by 7-5 or a ridiculous 8-4 with a round that had to be officially scored as a draw, well thats what most people would of done if they did not already have an agenda.

I can see someone scoring it one way or another at a push but it was a very! close fight.


You wont count the point deduction but i bet you counted the KD eh :lol1:

No i dont believe im more right than anyone else but you know what i do credit myself on being, being fairly balanced and not letting crowd reaction, commentary reaction, public reaction cloud my judgment, plus im always willing to concede if someone has a close fight the other way, what i cant respect is people with an agenda who will try and overreact and make something out to be some 8-4 fight that was easy to score when it was SO!! clearly not easy to score or wide one way or another.

You are no more objective than I am, in my opinion. So when you make kiddie comments like "I'm objective, you're not" it screams of a 16-year-old who thinks they know a little too much. Save it.

Not at all i tend always answers your questions, its YOU! who dodges questions like before when we spoke in the lounge.

I don't dodge anything. I'm just humored by you. Who can answer a question when it's prefaced by all this nonsense?

Thats why you have no perception. I found it hard to score for either man because i was taking in what BOTH men we effective doing and neither did enough to earn victory over the other imo, much less a victory by 7-5 or a ridiculous 8-4 with a round that had to be officially scored as a draw, well thats what most people would of done if they did not already have an agenda.

That's why I have no perception? Alright, "objective one." Conversation over.

You are no more objective than I am, in my opinion. So when you make kiddie comments like "I'm objective, you're not" it screams of a 16-year-old who thinks they know a little too much. Save it.



I don't dodge anything. I'm just humored by you. Who can answer a question when it's prefaced by all this nonsense?


That's why I have no perception? Alright, "objective one." Conversation over.

So when you make kiddie comments like "I'm objective, you're not" it screams of a 16-year-old who thinks they know a little too much. Save it.



You think the rounds were easy to score and that Whitaker won 8-4, that says it all LOL, oh! and you dont follow the official rules if you! think the rules dont comply with your ideals LOL.

To be the best... you have to beat the best... to beat the best... you have to fight the best. he fought the best. he fought more top notch fighters than anyone I can think of... he didnt win them all, but he was always competitive except against Pac and Hopkins.

Oscar lost to many major fights for me to consider him top 25 all time. I mean there are lot of boxers that go on that all time list in different weight classes. Oscar fail to beat Tito, Mosley twice, Mayweather, B-hop(yes weight is considered, but smaller fighters have beaten bigger fighters), and Pacquiao (yea he was weight drain, but he shouldn't have taken the fight at that weight).
He beat Vargas, but was Vargas great? I don't think so. He beat Chavez at 34 and Camacho at 35, but to me age is nothing but a number.

I say oscar is top 50 all time, but top 25 i don't think he makes it.

ODH was a great fighter.. IMO he was robbed against Trinidad & Mosley, i had him beating Sturm and losing to Whitaker

Are Tszyu,Tyson,Calzaghe could be ATG's ?

Are Tszyu,Tyson,Calzaghe could be ATG's ?
Nay on all three.